Peter Kenyon

Where Kenyon leads Guido follows

Glad to see Guido's on top of the story about the latest recruit to the Fagin school of politics. At 1.35pm today Cameron's venal side was exposed here.  At 2.56pm he posted: Cameron: "Nationalise Democracy" Better late than never.

Cameron's venal side exposed over Labour funding

You couldn't make it up. Here we are more than a week into the Donorgate affair and David Cameron is signalling there is scope for a deal to fleece the taxpayer to fund the Conservative Party.  At a press conference earlier today, he is reported here:

Mr Cameron said later that it would be "unrealistic" to have a system of donation caps and no extra taxpayer funding at all for parties.

"If parties just sit there getting fat cheques from the taxpayer for doing not very much, that's not a good system," he said.

But he added: "I think it would be unrealistic to say you can have a £50,000 cap that applied right across the board, to say at the same time 'no additional state funding'.

"We do need parties that are appropriately funded."

Quite so. No principles to worry about there, then in the new Conservative Party. Meanwhile, a close read of Gordon's speech to the Labour Party National Policy Forum suggests that our man is not convinced increased state-funding is right. This is evident from these words:

The Short funding has increased more than fourfold since 1997. This year, the total amount of short money was £6.6m, with over £4.5m being paid to the Conservative Party.

While I myself need to be convinced that there would be public acceptance of extensions, I recognise that this will be a source of continuing consultation.

The full text of Brown's speech can be read here. I have already taken Brown to task here about his bald assertions about state funding. Some may see this reflection as evidence of indecision on his part. I prefer to live in hope.

Does Labour's Leader think we are all daft?

I've been in Manchester all day for the Annual General Meeting of Save the Labour Party. Gordon Brown's speech to the National Policy Forum was dominated by the subject of political funding. It appears as though he has been discouraged from bouncing proposals through the Labour Party's National Executive Committee for the moment. But he must have left his audience at the National Policy Forum in no doubt about his intentions.

Here is the key section of his speech with my observations in plain bold:

Way forward

Because I believe it is now time to move forward, I believe our party should now discuss and agree reform and how best to make change work.

In the first instance NEC and PLP officers should warn the Leader that he does not serve either the government or the party's interests by making misleading statements, for example:

Since the 1970s the provision of ‘Short Money’ and ‘Cranborne Money’ has provided public funds to the main opposition parties. So the principle of public funding of our democracy is already being implemented.

Short and Cranborne monies are provided for a specific purpose to fund parliamentary opposition to offset the access to publicly funded resources of the government, namely the civil service and special advisors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Money

These funds are specifically tied to parliamentary activity. They do not create a precedent for increased state funding as set out by Hayden Phillips.

And all political parties have had the opportunity of free television and radio time, along with free postage.

Except for local government elections where there is a case for extending facilities.

The Short funding has increased more than fourfold since 1997. This year, the total amount of short money was £6.6m, with over £4.5m being paid to the Conservative Party.

Government expenditure on Special Advisors, for example, has mushroomed so this is not surprising and does not detract from the original and continuing purpose of Short Money

While I myself need to be convinced that there would be public acceptance of extensions, I recognise that this will be a source of continuing consultation.

With whom? Will this include the Labour Party itself which has already taken a view about Hayden Phillips?

Will Brown be allowed to get away with this?

Labour's Harman stands firm in Business Questions

Leader of the House of Commons, Harriet Harman QC MP, survived with aplomb a fitful Tory offensive led by her opposite number, Teresa May MP during the weekly Business Statement. The Speaker, Michael Martin MP helpfully reminded both women not to stray off the Business Statement by going into details of the 'dodgy donations' affair. Efforts to hype up the affair have gone into overdrive elsewhere on the blogosphere with Guido claiming, for example:

Exclusive : Police to Seize Labour Party Software Evidence

Close reading shows he is merely inciting the police to do their job, and do it quickly before records are deleted.  Time to get out the salt cellar. Evidence of anyone other than Peter Watt being party to the unlawful donations arrangement is proving so elusive that I have come to the view that the Prime Minister is right to accept in good faith Harriet Harman and Jon Mendelsohn's accounts of what they knew, when. However, that does not detract from my concern that if any evidence is produced that a minister of the crown did know about Watt's 'dodgy donation' arrangement, then it won't just be the individual concerned whose job will be on the line. It could provoke a constitutional crisis, that might only be resolved by the resignation of the whole government.

Brown must shun party politics at taxpayers' expense

The Labour Party needs to rebuild from its grassroots. No apologies for being a harpy. Yet Gordon Brown at PMQs today was still trotting out the tired script inherited from his predecessor about the Hayden Phillips inquiry (sic) into party political funding. Admittedly this a fast moving story. His performance at PMQs was otherwise faultless. We have got to avoid being distracted by our political opponents whinging on about the internal Labour Party inquiry by Lord Whitty, the results of which are to be reviewed and worked on by m'Lords Harries and McClusky. This does not in any way detract from inquiries by the Electoral Commission and possibly the Metropolitan Police.

But the issue of Labour Party solvency remains. Taxpayers' money is not the answer. There is a shockingly corrosive view at large among "opinion formers". This asserts that the age of mass membership political parties is dead.  My colleagues and I in Save the Labour Party and on the LabOUR Commission disagree profoundly.

A start was made in the late 1980s through to 1997, then stopped. The Electoral Commisson made a valiant, but timid attempt to remind our politicians of the role of members and small donations in its report on the funding of political parties in December 2004. Since then silence from ALL three main political parties. No debate in Parliament. No further consideration by a select committee in either of the Houses of Parliament. No public service broadcasting coverage. No broadsheet analysis. Total silence.

Meanwhile, Labour Party membership continues to fall. A question from Mary Turner, President  of the GMB union, at last week's Labour Party National Executive Committee about membership revealed that the 2007 year end figure to be published in July 2008 would show a further, albeit and thankfully, smaller fall than in the previous 11 years. In an earlier presentation Party officials said recruitment and retention were at the highest levels for a decade. That's welcome. Bit it does not detract from the fact that Labour failed to attract enough members to halt the 11-year decline in membership.

Without a vision of rebuilding Labour Party membership, translating Labour values into Labour policies in government, Gordon Brown's premiership is doomed. Impossible to rebuild membership? Has Labour nothing to learn from mass membership single issue organisations?

Stop it Gordon...Harriet is not the chair of the Labour Party

Has anyone in No 10 got the guts to tell Gordon Brown that there is no such post as Chair of the Labour Party? It's good that he is trying to put the public at its ease about swift action over the dodgy donation by convening an inquiry. Its good that he has stated the donations will be refunded. It demeans him and Harriet to assign a fictitious position to her. Similarly regarding the so-called six vice-chairs. And while I am at it, in answer to questions at the PM's monthly press conference he stated that he only attended NEC meetings to give a Leader's Report, and that he did not have time to stay for other reports affecting the governance of the Labour Party. Excuse me, the Labour Party Rule Book does not proscribe the Leader's role in this way. That smacks of Macavity.
If he is determined to sort this latest calamity out as he is repeatedly stating, then he needs to pay full attention to the proceedings of the Party - ignorance is no excuse. Finally, Hayden Phillips - statefunding. Forget it. The word is out there that any politician that backs the Hayden Phillips formula is trying to rip off the taxpayer. The Electoral Commission recommended in 2004 that political parties need to attract more members and small donations. Brown seems to want to repeat the mistake of his predecessor in exploiting an internal Labour Party  crisis to advance the case for state-funding. Stop it.

More evidence to justify cap on election spending

A study just published here concludes that money is a factor in elections at a constituency level. No prizes for guessing who benefits.

"In the world of campaign finance, therefore, money talks and current donation patterns give one party, the Conservatives, a significant advantage over their rivals," they said.

'Nuf said.

Hayden Phillips admits defeat - surprise, surprise

Just back from an evening out to discover that taxpayers have been spared the prospect of lavishing more cash on the political class. Former civil servant Sir Hayden Phillips today announced that the inter-party talks on political part funding have been 'suspended'. Iain Dale blames Labour for refusing to cap trade union donation. Unlock Democracy has got into an extraordinary lather here. Considered comment I would humbly suggest involves remembering the provenence of Hayden Phillips Inquiry. I can recommend this piece here.  The main losers are the Liberal Democrats.

The end of these talks offers Gordon Brown another opportunity to distance himself from the stench of his predecessor's cash for honours affair, tighten up on MPs expenses for 'communication' and set out a bold plan to encourage people to join political parties, by setting out the stall for Labour.  Plus of course, we mustn't forget that legislation is still necessary to set tough spending limits on elections. The public really isn't interested in being showered with junk mail, bombarded with telephone cold-calling or confronted with billboard wars. It expects politicians to deliver preferably in person, not through a mail shot. Roll on the Queen's speech next week.

It's not too late to clean up British politics

This week is expected to see the back of the Hayden Phillips Inquiry - a shameful adventure by Labour's previous leader in the wake of the Cash for Honours scandal. Last week saw the Public Administration Committee interviewing Yates of the Yard. It gives me no pleasure to pick up on Simon Jenkin's piece in today's Sunday Times here. He concludes:

If Brown really wants to import into public life the ethics of Calvin and Knox, he has an uphill road ahead of him. He talks liberal on constitutional change yet he shirks the detail, such as Lords reform, party financing, cleansing the honours system and ending the MPs’ expenses racket.

I don't think its too late for Brown to pick up the detail and confound his critics.

Jenkins, however, has a different view:

The reason, it has become increasingly clear, is that Britain’s new prime minister is all mouth and no muscle.

Your call, Gordon.

Labour/Tory MPs in dock over misuse of allowances

Hat-tip to Simon Carr of the Independent for drawing attention to this report from the House of Commons Committee of Standards and Privileges in the case of complaints of misusing their allowances for party political purposes against MPs Martin Salter and Rob Wilson, representing Reading West and Reading East respectively. Buried in the evidence were Martin Salter's own words in a debate in the House of Commons on 28 March 2007 on the introduction of the new controversial £10K/annum Communications Allowance:

“We have all been breaking the rules. Let us be honest—we have all been at it, and I more than most, probably, because it is common sense to do so.”

Shouldn't Labour be aspiring to better standards than that when it comes to using taxpayers' money?